05worldserieschamps wrote:1. The reason it matters that Owens was young is because he can improve! Uribe has already entered his prime with little to no hope of signifigantly improving. However, Owens has a good chance to improve. Sure, Owens was useless in 2007. But the trade doesnt effect 2007, it effects 2008. Owens was going to be a much better player than Uribe in 2008, simple as that. Maybe not in 2007, but it was his rookie season. Cut him some slack.

While it might matter for evaluating the overall impact on the Sox for the next 5 years, it does not matter at all for assessing whether it improves the Sox in 2008 over 2007. We are not comparing Owens to Uribe. We are comparing the switch of Swisher taking playing time from Owens and Cabrera taking playing time from Uribe. Swisher is also 26, so you get his improvement. Cabrera is 33, while Uribe is 29, so it's MORE likely that Cabrera will decline than Uribe.

05worldserieschamps wrote:2. Ill agree that speed is a little overrated, but speed never slumps. If Juan Uribe is in a slump, then he is in a slump.(gosh, id hate to see a Uribe slump) However, if Jerry Owens isnt hitting the ball great, he can slap a ball towards the 6 hole and beat out a hit. Speed ultimately can raise your average and how many times a player reaches base. Simple as that. Maybe he beats out a few more double play possibilities. Maybe speed is a little overrated, but it isnt useless. Your looking at speed as just stolen bases, but its not.

On that note, I think that speed can greatly effect defense. There will be more balls hit in the gap that maybe Jerry Owens' speed could reach than Swishers speed could even think about getting to. Speed helps. Ill be the first to agree there are more important things like...judging a fly ball. But still, flat out speed is more valuable than that at times.

Sure, speed slumps. Hammys ache and your knees, wrists and ankles get sore. A good slide step and catcher neutralize speed, the same way a good pitcher stops your hitting.

And regardless of that, the question is what's the net result over 162 games? Owens just doesn't beat out enough grounders to be a very valuable hitter. That .636 OPS tells you almost all of what you need to know. Rant and rave about his speed, if the end result is a .636 OPS, he sucks no matter how many grounders he beats out or how many bases he steals.

Speed CAN impact defense, but the question is whether it does or not. Judge him by the results not the speed. And the results generally says that Owens is somewhere between a slightly below average to a slightly above average fielder. And they also say that Cabrera is not much of an improvement at all over Uribe in defense.

05worldserieschamps wrote:3. I totally agree that they score more runs with Swisher than Owens. However, there will be situations and times when Owens would have helped more than Swisher. Thats my point. He brings a different type of play the Sox dont have right now. If they face a Sabathia, Carmona, Santana or Bonderman and are getting shut down offensively, maybe Owens can make something happen and get a run Swisher couldnt with straight out hitting. Of course they get more runs with Swisher, but Owens still gets runs Swisher cant. I honestly believe that there isnt anything Juan Uribe can do that Orlando Cabrera can't. And I would probably rather have Orlando Cabrera is 162 of 162 games this year.

Who gives a rat's butt if Jerry Owens steals a base on August 4th to help you win a game? You have to add into that assessment the fact that he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat in the middle of the Pacific in 161 other games. If they get more runs with Swisher, they win more. Period. No amount of hand waving about Owens' speed changes that basic fact.

05worldserieschamps wrote:4. I can mostly agree with that statement, however I dont think they won IN SPITE of it. Pitching doesnt win championships, pitching AND hitting wins championships. Pitching was our best attribute in 2005, however small ball may mean scoring more runs over the long term, but also for more wins. The small ball approach is built when you have good pitching and are facing good pitching, which is why its successful in the playoffs. However, point #4 wasnt a big point anyway. It just looks better to have 5 points.

No, small ball will NEVER score you more runs over the long term and will never get you more wins. And there's no evidence that small ball works better in the play-offs. Small ball strategies might work better in a run environment when teams score 3 or fewer runs per game, but that has not desribed baseball in about 100 years.

05worldserieschamps wrote:5. In some situations, yes. But last year, we needed someone to have an average over .276, and we didnt. Having .300 hitters helps, regardless of how poor you say the measurment is. And, for the most part, walks are going to come. but having someone that can flat out hit is extremely important. Not to say Owens is that guy, but average isnt a completely useless stat.

No, walks are not just going to come. Drawing a walk is a specific skill that some hitters have and other do not. No one said BA is completely useless, but they are a very incomplete assessment of a hitter's contributions. And, besides, it is totally irrelevant to the Owens/Swisher discussion, since Owens isn't a high average hitter.

"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."

1. I still disagree about speed slumping. When your hammys and ankles hurt, everything slumps. I was speaking, of course, injuries aside. As a freak injury can change any part of your game, no matter how good you are at it.

2. He may of had a .636 OPS last year. Yes, that sucks. But it was his rookie season! Cut the guy some slack. My point is that his second year will be much improved from his shortened first season, that is if he is playing everyday. I think he could greatly improve that OPS in 2008. And speed would be a good reason for that.

3. You're right about Owens stealing the base on Aug. 4th, etc. But the argument is over if Owens vs. Swisher and Cabrera vs. Uribe have similar impacts on the amount of change. Fact is: there are games(which I could safely say, more than one on August 4th) that Jerry Owens could help us win where Swisher wouldnt. So, even though Swisher is an unbelievable upgrade from Owens, Owens still could have made contributions. Cabrera is a good upgrade from Uribe, however, Uribe doesnt help you win any games. His style of play just brings a team down. period. Owens' doesnt. Therefore, they have similar values in terms of upgrades.

4. The biggest point, though, is that we already have 4-5 Nick Swishers on the team(so to speak). Guys who are some of the best power hitters at their respective positions, hit for averages from .250-.275, strikeout a moderate to above average amount of times and have little to no speed. It's not like Swisher brings a component(no matter how big or small) to the team that we dont already have. Thats what Owens does. Thats why I think it shrinks(just a little) the importance of this trade. Its still a huge upgrade, but so was the Uribe-Cabrera trade. The Swisher trade may have had a slightly larger impact, my point was that they were close.

Is pushing for President Obama to pass a law requiring all citizens to be Chicago White Sox fans and make October 1st "White Sox Day" where we all dress as our favorite player. It maybe socialist, but I don't care.

05worldserieschamps wrote:1. I still disagree about speed slumping. When your hammys and ankles hurt, everything slumps. I was speaking, of course, injuries aside. As a freak injury can change any part of your game, no matter how good you are at it.

2. He may of had a .636 OPS last year. Yes, that sucks. But it was his rookie season! Cut the guy some slack. My point is that his second year will be much improved from his shortened first season, that is if he is playing everyday. I think he could greatly improve that OPS in 2008. And speed would be a good reason for that.

3. You're right about Owens stealing the base on Aug. 4th, etc. But the argument is over if Owens vs. Swisher and Cabrera vs. Uribe have similar impacts on the amount of change. Fact is: there are games(which I could safely say, more than one on August 4th) that Jerry Owens could help us win where Swisher wouldnt. So, even though Swisher is an unbelievable upgrade from Owens, Owens still could have made contributions. Cabrera is a good upgrade from Uribe, however, Uribe doesnt help you win any games. His style of play just brings a team down. period. Owens' doesnt. Therefore, they have similar values in terms of upgrades.

4. The biggest point, though, is that we already have 4-5 Nick Swishers on the team(so to speak). Guys who are some of the best power hitters at their respective positions, hit for averages from .250-.275, strikeout a moderate to above average amount of times and have little to no speed. It's not like Swisher brings a component(no matter how big or small) to the team that we dont already have. Thats what Owens does. Thats why I think it shrinks(just a little) the importance of this trade. Its still a huge upgrade, but so was the Uribe-Cabrera trade. The Swisher trade may have had a slightly larger impact, my point was that they were close.

Speed is very overrated. Unless Owens is getting on base at .350+ he is not a good player. IMO a non-power hitter is only an asset if he is getting on base (speed is not a significant advantage). As long as a guy can typically make it 1st to 3rd and 2nd to home on a single he is fast enough in my book. Speed is nice to have, but very, very overrated. I will take an entire lineup of .350+ OBP slow guys that have some power if it has to be.

Swisher getting on-base (.381 last year) and providing power is a gigantic improvement over someone that isn't getting on-base and doesn't have power. Owens still has time to improve, but vs '07 - Swisher is a huge improvement. Likewise Cabrera and a .330 OBP is a good improvement over '07 Uribe (.282 OBP). He's still not that good however.

Quentin is the X-factor here though, he put up a .427 OBP in the minors, if he comes close to .375 with a little power he will be very valuable to this team. This might actually be the most significant trade that Chicago made this year. Swisher might be a better player, they gave up alot more to get him.

Jerry Owens didn't hit as a 23 year old in A ball. He didn't hit as a 24 year old in AA. He didn't hit as a 25 year old in AAA. He didn't hit as a 26 year old in AAA. And he didn't hit as a 26 year old in the majors.

Which is a more reasonable assumption: A: Jerry Owens is suddenly going to learn to hit or B: Jerry Owens sucks as a hitter.

Rookie season doesn't maek any difference. The track record is clear. Jerry Owens can't hit and never will.

Fact is there are a zillion more games per year where Jerry Owens will KILL your offense because of the fact that he sucks as a hitter, and always will. You have to take the enormous number of times Owens hurts your offense along with the very, very, very, very very very very very very very very few times he helps.

Contrary top what you say, Uribe has one significant advantage over Cabrera. He hits for power. Furthermore, prior to the past year, Uribe was a significantly better fielding SS. In fact, may people believe Uribe was a top candidate for a Gold Glove in the 2004-2006 period. That's not really relevant for the current discussion and does not change the fact that Uribe is not a good player now. But, frankly, Cabrera is not much of an improvement at all obver uribe. Style of play does not matter one bit. There's no evidence that it contributes to winning. And there are no style points awarded in baseball.

The fact is that Swisher not only brings a component to the team that it did not have--he brings one of the most important components to the team. HE CAN HIT. If you have not noticed for all the supposed sluggers the Sox had last year, their offense sucked. It was DEAD LAST in the AL.

Swisher adds a vitally important part to this team. It's called Offense. Scoring runs. It's half or more of what you need to win. Cabrera/Uribe adds very little offense and doesn't improve the defense very much, either. It's a modest improvement by comparison.

"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."

Yikes, all this arguing is getting a bit foolish. 1. Orlando Cabrera is an asset to the team and an improvement. Uribe was and is G-o-d A-w-f-u-l. OCab adds speed and average -- he's a great #2 hitter that the Sox needed. 2. The White Sox were at their best in 2005 because of one Scott Podsednik. Is speed overrated? Sure. Does it win games when your lead off hitter gets on base, steals second, and then is home on Iguchi's single? Absolutely. The Sox won and lost by Podsednik.

OneLoveBoomer wrote:Yikes, all this arguing is getting a bit foolish. 1. Orlando Cabrera is an asset to the team and an improvement. Uribe was and is G-o-d A-w-f-u-l. OCab adds speed and average -- he's a great #2 hitter that the Sox needed. 2. The White Sox were at their best in 2005 because of one Scott Podsednik. Is speed overrated? Sure. Does it win games when your lead off hitter gets on base, steals second, and then is home on Iguchi's single? Absolutely. The Sox won and lost by Podsednik.

Maybe speed's overrated, but it's absurd to belittle it so.

If you can't get on base, speed is wasted. I'll take the slow guy that's on-base instead of the fast guy that's in the dugout.

OneLoveBoomer wrote:Yikes, all this arguing is getting a bit foolish. 1. Orlando Cabrera is an asset to the team and an improvement. Uribe was and is G-o-d A-w-f-u-l. OCab adds speed and average -- he's a great #2 hitter that the Sox needed. 2. The White Sox were at their best in 2005 because of one Scott Podsednik. Is speed overrated? Sure. Does it win games when your lead off hitter gets on base, steals second, and then is home on Iguchi's single? Absolutely. The Sox won and lost by Podsednik.

Maybe speed's overrated, but it's absurd to belittle it so.

If you can't get on base, speed is wasted. I'll take the slow guy that's on-base instead of the fast guy that's in the dugout.

You'd take a slow guy that's on base instead of a fast guy that's in the dugout? Me too.

OneLoveBoomer wrote:2. The White Sox were at their best in 2005 because of one Scott Podsednik. Is speed overrated? Sure. Does it win games when your lead off hitter gets on base, steals second, and then is home on Iguchi's single? Absolutely. The Sox won and lost by Podsednik.

Maybe speed's overrated, but it's absurd to belittle it so.

When your leadoff hitter does that you score one run, the same as when anyone else scores a run by hitting a homerun. Every run you score increases your chances to win. In 2005 the White Sox scored 741 runs and won 99 games. They had Pods in 2006 as well and scored 868 runs and won only 90 games. So they scored 127 more runs but lost 9 more games. The Sox did not win and lose by Podsednik, they won and lost by their pitching that gave up 150 more runs in 2006 than they did in 2005.

OneLoveBoomer wrote:2. The White Sox were at their best in 2005 because of one Scott Podsednik. Is speed overrated? Sure. Does it win games when your lead off hitter gets on base, steals second, and then is home on Iguchi's single? Absolutely. The Sox won and lost by Podsednik.

Maybe speed's overrated, but it's absurd to belittle it so.

When your leadoff hitter does that you score one run, the same as when anyone else scores a run by hitting a homerun. Every run you score increases your chances to win. In 2005 the White Sox scored 741 runs and won 99 games. They had Pods in 2006 as well and scored 868 runs and won only 90 games. So they scored 127 more runs but lost 9 more games. The Sox did not win and lose by Podsednik, they won and lost by their pitching that gave up 150 more runs in 2006 than they did in 2005.

The idea that the 2005 White Sox won by playing small ball is still one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. They won because the entire starting rotation had career years at the same time, period. There is no discussion about this, I don't care if you watched every game and felt Pods just sparked every rally. Pods scored 80 runs in 2005, the team had one of it's worst seasons for runs scored and the majority of those runs came via the longball as they hit 200 HR's.

They allowed only 3.98 Runs/Game and had a 124 ERA+, it is very easy to win when you do that. In 2006 that jumped to 4.90 R/G and in 2004 it was 5.13 R/G, both of those years they scored more runs as well.